Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2024 DIGILAW 525 (MP)

Shahrukh Mev and Jawed Khan v. State of M. P.

2024-07-29

SUBODH ABHYANKAR

body2024
ORDER 1. This petition has been filed by the petitioners under section 528 of Bhartiya Nagarik Sanhita, 2023 (in short B.N.S.S.) (482 of the Cr.P.C.), against the order dated 25.6.2024, passed by the Special Judge (N.D.P.S.Act), Jaora, District-Ratlam (M.P.) in Case No.545/2019 whereby the application filed by the petitioners for granting permission to apply for passport has been rejected. 2. In brief, the facts of the case are that the petitioners are facing the trial under sections 307, 336, 147, 148, 149, 353, 332 and 333 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and under sections 8/15(c) and 29 of the N.D.P.S. Act, in Case No.545/2019 at police station Industrial Area, Jaora, District –Ratlam (M.P.). 3. It is an admitted fact that in the earlier round of litigation when the petitioners applied for permission to obtain the passport, the same was rejected by the trial Court vide its order dated 27.2.2024, which led the petitioners to prefer M.Cr.C.No.20639/2024, which was disposed of on 29.5.2024, with the following observations: “5. In view of the same, the impugned order is hereby set aside, and the matter is remanded back to the learned Judge of the trial Court with further request to decide the petitioners’ application in accordance with law without being influenced by the earlier order passed by the trial Court dated 27.2.2024, and also in the light of the observation made herein above.” 4. Counsel for the petitioners has submitted that subsequently when the petitioners again went back to the trial Court, their application has again been rejected only on the ground that there is nothing on record to suggest that any order has been passed by the competent authority to the effect that the passport shall be issued only after the permission is given by the trial Court, or that the passport authority has refused to issue the passport of the petitioners on account of the registration of the criminal case, and even assuming that the passport authority has refused the application, the same is correct, according to section 6 of the Passport Act, 1967. 5. 5. Counsel for the petitioners has further submitted that section 6 provides for the refusal of passport on the ground of pendency of the criminal case in a criminal Court of in India, and as per the Notification dated 25.8.1993, it is clearly provided that such permission can be granted by the trial Court itself to obtain the passport to travel abroad. Thus, it is submitted that the impugned order be set aside. 6. Counsel for the respondent/State, on the other hand, has opposed the prayer. However, the legal position has not been denied that it is only after the court gives the permission to an accused to travel abroad, he or she can apply for the passport. 7. Heard. Thus, it is submitted that the impugned order be set aside. 6. Counsel for the respondent/State, on the other hand, has opposed the prayer. However, the legal position has not been denied that it is only after the court gives the permission to an accused to travel abroad, he or she can apply for the passport. 7. Heard. In view of the aforesaid submissions, and on perusal of the documents filed on record, as also the Notification dated 25.8.1993; the relevant para of which reads as under:-- “MINISTRY OF EXTERNAL AFFAIRS NOTIFICATION New Delhi, the 25th August, 1993 G.S.R, 570(E), -- In exercise of the power conferred by clause (a) of section 22 of the Passports Act 1967(15 of 1967) and in supersession of the notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of External Affairs No. G.S.R. 298(E), dated the 14th , April, 1976 the Central Government, being of the opinion that it is necessary in public interest to do so, hereby exempts citizen of India against whom proceedings in respect of an offence alleged to have been committed by them are pending before a criminal Court in India and who produce orders from the court concerned permitting them to depart from India, from the operation of the provisions of Clause (f) of sub-section (2) of Section 6 of the said Act, subject to the following conditions, namely:- (a) the passport to be issued to every such citizen shall be issued- (i) for the period specified in order of the Court referred to above, if the court specifies a period for which the passport has to be issued; or (ii) if no period either for the issue of the passport or for the travel abroad is specified in such order, the passport shall be issued for a period one year; (iii) if such order gives permission to travel abroad for a period less than one year, but does not specify the period validity of the passport, the passport shall be issued for one year; or (iv) if such order gives permission to travel abroad for a period exceeding one year, and does not specify the validity of the passport, then the passport shall be issued for the period of travel abroad specified in the order. (b) any passport issued in terms of (a) (ii) and (a) (iii) above can be further renewed for one year at a time, provided the applicant has not travelled abroad for the period sanctioned by the Court; and provided further that, in the meantime, the order of the Court is not cancelled or modified; (c) any passport issued in terms of (a) (i) above can be further renewed only on the basis of a fresh court order specifying a further period of validity of the passport or specifying a period for travel abroad; (d) the said citizen shall give an undertaking in writing to the passport issuing authority that he shall, if required by the Court concerned, appear before it any time during the continuance in force of the passport so issued.” (Emphasis supplied) 8. In view of the aforesaid notification, this Court is of the considered opinion that the learned Judge of the trial Court has clearly erred in law in holding that, there is nothing on record to suggest that the petitioners’ application has been rejected by the passport authority and also that even if the authority has rejected the same; it is in accordance with law. The finding is clearly erroneous in the light of the aforesaid Notification, which provides an exception that in case of pendency of a criminal case, a passport can still be issued to an accused after the permission from the competent Court is granted. 9. Accordingly, the impugned order is hereby set aside, and in view of the aforesaid discussion, the matter is again remanded back to the concerned trial Court, and the learned Judge of the trial Court is directed to pass the order strictly in accordance with law. 10. The petition stands allowed and disposed of.